click links in text for more info

Appointments Clause

The Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law delegate the Senate's advice and consent role when it comes to "inferior" officers.... and shall nominate, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The Appointments Clause confers plenary power to the President to nominate various officials, it confers plenary power to the Senate to reject or confirm a nominee, through its advice and consent provision.

As with other separation of powers provisions in the Constitution, the wording here seeks to ensure accountability and preempt tyranny. This separation of powers between the President and Senate is present in the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, which gives international treaty-making power to the President, but attaches to it the proviso of the Senate's advice and consent. Several framers of the U. S. Constitution explained that the required role of the Senate is to advise the President after the nomination has been made by the President. Roger Sherman believed. President George Washington took the position that pre-nomination advice was allowable but not mandatory; the notion that pre-nomination advice is optional has developed into the unification of the "advice" portion of the power with the "consent" portion, although several Presidents have consulted informally with Senators over nominations and treaties. The actual motion adopted by the Senate when exercising the power is "to advise and consent", which shows how initial advice on nominations and treaties is not a formal power exercised by the Senate.

On Nov. 21, 2013, the Senate changed its rules regarding the number of votes needed to end debate on a presidential nomination and bring it to a vote. Before that date, a minority of senators could engage in a filibuster and block a vote on a nomination unless three-fifths of senators voted to end debate. Under the new rules, a simple majority is all, needed to end debate; the only exception was for nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, which could still be blocked from going to a vote by a filibuster, until the Senate rules were again changed on April 6th, 2017 during Senate debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Congress itself may not exercise the appointment power; the Framers of the U. S. Constitution were concerned that Congress might seek to exercise the appointment power and fill offices with their supporters, to the derogation of the President's control over the executive branch; the Appointments Clause thus functions as a restraint on Congress and as an important structural element in the separation of powers.

Attempts by Congress to circumvent the Appointments Clause, either by making appointments directly, or through devices such as "unilaterally appointing an incumbent to a new and distinct office" under the guise of legislating new duties for an existing office, have been rebuffed by the courts. The Appointments Clause distinguishes between officers of the United States who must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. An earlier proposed draft of the Appointments Clause would have given the President a broader power to "appoint officers in all cases not otherwise provided for by this Constitution," but some delegates of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention worried that this language would permit the President to create offices as well as to fill them, a classic case of institutional corruption; the requirement that the President can appoint inferior officers only when Congress has "by Law vest" that power in the President sought to preclude that possibility. One chief questions recurs under the "by Law" language: Who are "inferior Officers," not subject to the requirement of advice and consent.

As an initial matter, most government employees are not officers and thus are not subject to the Appointments Clause. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that only those appointees "exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States" are "Officers of the United States," and hence it is only those who exercise such "significant authority" who must be appointed by a mechanism set forth in the Appointments Clause; the Framers of the U. S. A Constitution did not define the line between principal officers and inferior officers, the Supreme Court has been content to approach the analysis on a case-by-case basis rather than through a definitive

Bernard du Bus de Gisignies

Jonkheer Bernard Amé Léonard du Bus de Gisignies was a Dutch nobleman and on a Belgian politician and paleontologist. He was the second son of Leonard Pierre Joseph du Bus de Gisignies, he married Petronilla Truyts on 19 May 1845, together they had two children. He soon became more interested in ornithology. In 1835 he presented a manuscript to the Royal Academy of Belgium in which described the bird Leptorhynchus pectoralis, he was a member of parliament for Soignies. He became the first director of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in 1846. On this occasion he donated 2474 birds from his own collection to the museum. In 1860, during the construction of new fortifications around Antwerp he became involved in paleontology; the fossils found were from whales. He obtained the skeletons from a bowhead whale and a young blue whale, which are still on display in the museum. In 1860 the skeleton of a mammoth was brought to the museum. At that time the only other skeleton of a mammoth was on display in the museum of Saint Petersburg.

In 1867 he became the director of the science section of the Royal Academy of Belgium. Bernard du Bus de Gisignies Heemkundige Kring van Malle, Camera Obscura op Oost- en Westmalle, 1980 Bart De Prins, Leonard du Bus de Gisignies, Heemkundige Kring van Malle, 1999


Zemarchus was a Byzantine official and traveller in the reign of Justin II. In the middle of the 6th century, the Göktürks conquered the Sogdiana and thus gained control of the silk trade, which passed through Central Asia into Sassanid Persia; the Persian king, Chosroes I, dreading the intrusion of Turkish influence, refused to allow the old commerce to continue. The Turks, after many rebuffs, consented to a suggestion made by their mercantile subjects of the Soghd, in 568 sent an embassy to Constantinople to form an alliance with the Byzantines and commence the silk trade directly with them, bypassing the Persian middlemen; the offer was accepted by Justin II, in August 569, Zemarchus the Cilician left Byzantium for Sogdiana. The embassy, whose description is preserved by Menander Protector, was under the guidance of Maniakh, "chief of the people of Sogdiana", who had first, according to Menander, suggested to Dizabul Istämi, the great khan of the Turks, this "Roman" alliance, had himself come to Byzantium to negotiate it.

On reaching the Sogdian territories the travellers were offered iron for sale, solemnly exorcised. After these precautions the envoys proceeded to the camp of Dizabul in a "hollow encompassed by the Golden Mountain", in some locality of the Altay Mountains or Tian Shan, they found the khan surrounded by astonishing barbaric pomp: gilded thrones, golden peacocks and silver plate and silver animals and clothing of figured silk. They accompanied him some way on his march against Persia, passing through Talas or Hazrat-e Turkestan in the Syr Daria valley, where Xuanzang, on his way from China to India sixty years met with another of Dizabul's successors. Zemarchus was present at a banquet in Talas where the Turkish kagan and the Persian envoy exchanged abuse. Near the river Oēkh he was sent back to Constantinople with a Turkish embassy and with envoys from various tribes subject to the Turks. Halting by the "vast, wide lagoon", Zemarchus sent off an express messenger, one George, to announce his return to the emperor.

George hurried on by the shortest route, "desert and waterless" the steppes north of the Black Sea, while his superior, moving more marched twelve days by the sandy shores of the lagoon. He crossed the Emba, Ural and Kuban, passing round the western end of the Caucasus, arrived safely at Trebizond and Constantinople. For several years this Turkish alliance subsisted, while close trade was maintained between Central Asia and Byzantium but from 579 this friendship began to cool, it is curious that all this travel between the Bosporus and Transoxiana seems not to have done anything to correct, at least in literature, the widespread misapprehension of the Caspian Sea as a gulf of the Arctic Ocean. Chronology of European exploration of Asia Golden, Peter. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ISBN 9783447032742. Pp. 128–131 Kazhdan, Alexander, ed.. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.

Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504652-8. Luttwak, Edward N; the Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-03519-5

Long-eared owl

The long-eared owl known as the northern long-eared owl or, more informally, as the lesser horned owl or cat owl, is a medium-sized species of owl with an extensive breeding range. The scientific name is from Latin; the genus name Asio is a type of eared owl, otus refers to a small, eared owl. The species breeds in many areas through Asia, as well as in North America; this species is a part of the larger grouping of owls known as typical owls, of the family Strigidae, which contains most extant species of owl. This owl shows a partiality for semi-open habitats woodland edge, as they prefer to roost and nest within dense stands of wood but prefer to hunt over open ground; the long-eared owl is a somewhat specialized predator, focusing its diet entirely on small rodents voles, which quite comprise most of their diet. Under some circumstances, such as population cycles of their regular prey, arid or insular regional habitats or urbanization, this species can adapt well to a diversity of prey, including birds and insects.

All owls do not build their own nests. In the case of the long-eared owl, the owls utilizes nests that are built by other animals, with a partiality in many regions for those built by corvids. Breeding success in this species is correlated with prey populations and predation risks. Unlike many owls, long-eared owls are not territorial nor sedentary, they are migratory and, although owls appear to use the same migratory routes and wintering sites annually, can tend to appear so erratically that they are sometimes characterized as “nomadic”. Another unique characteristic of this species is its for regular roosts that are shared by a number of long-eared owls at once; the long-eared owl is one of the most distributed and most numerous owl species in the world, due to its broad range and numbers it is considered a least concern species by the IUCN. Nonetheless, strong declines have been detected for this owl in several parts of its range; this species is a rather slim and long winged owl with prominent erectile ear tufts, which are positioned closer to the center of the head than in many other types of owl.

The purposes of ear tufts are present in about half of living owls. Arguably the most popular theory amongst biologists and ornithologists is that ear tufts could be a means of intraspecies communication of intent and mood. In general coloration, the long-eared owl is considered a hue of ochraceous-tawny with a grayish or brownish wash variably manifesting; the base color is overlaid with variable blackish vertical streaks, which are more apparent about the wings and back. The scapulars are marked whitish, which provide further contrast when seen against the base color and blackish markings; the wing's dark carpal patches can display broad panels of buff or orange on the wings across the base of primaries, which represent a more richly emphasized version of a pattern shared with other owls that tend to be vole-hunting specialists, like short-eared owls and great gray owl. On the underside, the body tends to be a somewhat paler ochraceous-tawny compared to the upperside. Long-eared owls tend to have dusky streaks on the upper breast, below which they may be marked with herring bone pattern.

There is much individual and regional variation in markings with owls dwelling in more extensively forested regions tending to be of a darker hue so densely washed above as to appear dusky brown on the back and the underside overlaid with bolder dusky-blackish marks. Meanwhile, in some desert-like regions, the plumage may tend towards a somewhat more washed out look, at times appearing cream or yellowish, with sparser and lighter dusky markings overall; the facial disc is visibly well developed and variably colored in the species, rimmed dusky with white running down along the center through the bill, while at times the white lines form a “moustache” and/or extending to the inside of the facial disc rim. The ear tufts are dusky in front and paler tawny on the back. Long-eared owl possess a blackish bill color while its eyes may vary from yellowish-orange to orange-red and toes feathered; the long-eared owl is a medium-sized owl, which measures between 40 cm in total length. Their wingspan is large for their size, measuring 86 to 102 cm.

However, compared to other widespread owls considered of medium size and to which they can appear broadly similar in size, such as barn owl, short-eared owls and tawny owls, the long-eared owl is quite a bit lighter and slenderer bodied, with mature weights around half of those of tawny owls not being uncommon. As expected in owls and birds of prey in general, long-eared owls display reverse sexual dimorphism in which females are slightly larger than males. Males furthermore may tend to be somewhat paler in plumage than females. In Finland, one survey of the body mass of mature birds found that 22 males averaged 288 g while 20 females averaged 327 g. In body mass, European long-eared owls per a study were shown to run contrary to Bergmann's rule as body mass seemed to increase further south, being lightest in Sweden, where 37 males averaged 197 g and 24 females averaged 225 g, intermediate in De

Blanche Walsh

Blanche Walsh was a regarded American stage actress who appeared in one film, Resurrection based on the novel by Leo Tolstoy and the first three reel treatment of any Tolstoy story. Walsh's father was a Tammany politician and a prison warden, she acted in Charles Frohman's stock company. Walsh trooped for years in support of bigger names like Marie Wainwright, William Gillette and Nat C. Goodwin. In 1896 she accompanied Goodwin on a tour of Australia in Trilby. Walsh began picking up the emotional roles that Fanny Davenport had been playing, as Davenport was ill for a time prior to her 1898 death. Walsh bore a strong resemblance to her. After several years apprenticing in the emotional roles, Walsh moved up to more challenging parts such as Maslova the prostitute in Tolstoy's Resurrection and Margaret Rolfe in The Woman in the Case, she starred in a production of Tolstoy's The Kreutzer Sonata in 1904. An early silent short film from 1905 by Thomas Edison shows a theatre marquee announcing a Blanche Walsh appearance in a play.

Walsh's name is in big bold letters but she doesn't appear anywhere in the film. In 1912 Walsh agreed to do one motion picture for an independent film company, a film adaptation of the Tolstoy play she had been acting in on the stage, Resurrection; the film would be distributed through Adolph Zukor's new Famous Players company. This came around the same time that Zukor was showing Queen Elizabeth, a feature-length French film, starring Sarah Bernhardt. Zukor's aim was to lure big name Broadway stars to make feature films, films that are over 50 minutes. Walsh was one of the first major stage stars to make a film over 30 minutes long. Today Resurrection is a lost film. Walsh was married to Alfred Hickman from 1896 to 1903. Walsh remarried to William Travers with whom she remained married to until her death, she had no children. Walsh like Fanny Davenport seemed to be plagued by health problems. Contemporary newspaper accounts register her occasional hospitalizations. Walsh died on October 1915, after a final bout with her kidney problems.

Her sudden death was a shock to theater journalists alike. Blanche Walsh at the Internet Broadway Database Blanche Walsh on IMDb Blanche Walsh looking much the school girl.

Epimenides paradox

The Epimenides paradox reveals a problem with self-reference in logic. It is named after the Cretan philosopher Epimenides of Knossos, credited with the original statement. A typical description of the problem is given in the book Gödel, Bach, by Douglas Hofstadter: Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: "All Cretans are liars." A paradox of self-reference arises when one considers whether it is possible for Epimenides to have spoken the truth. Thomas Fowler states the paradox as follows: "Epimenides the Cretan says,'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan, but if he is a liar, what he says is untrue, the Cretans are veracious. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."The Epimenides paradox in this form, can be solved. There are two options: it is either true or false. First, assume that it is true, but Epimenides, being a Cretan, would be a liar, making the assumption that liars only make false statements, the statement is false.

So, assuming the statement is true leads us to conclude that the statement is false. This is a contradiction, so the option of the statement being true is not possible; this leaves the second option:. If we assume the statement is false and that Epimenides is lying about all Cretans being liars there must exist at least one Cretan, honest; this does not lead to a contradiction. This means that Epimenides can say the false statement that all Cretans are liars while knowing at least one honest Cretan and lying about this particular Cretan. Hence, from the assumption that the statement is false, it does not follow that the statement is true. So we can avoid a paradox as seeing the statement "all Cretans are liars" as a false statement, made by a lying Cretan, Epimenides; the mistake made by Thomas Fowler above is to think that the negation of "all Cretans are liars" is "all Cretans are honest" when in fact the negation is "there exists a Cretan, honest", or "not all Cretans are liars". The Epimenides paradox can be modified as to not allow the kind of solution described above, as it was in the first paradox of Eubulides but instead leading to a non-avoidable self-contradiction.

Paradoxical versions of the Epimenides problem are related to a class of more difficult logical problems, including the liar paradox, Socratic paradox, the Burali-Forti paradox, all of which have self-reference in common with Epimenides. Indeed, the Epimenides paradox is classified as a variation on the liar paradox, sometimes the two are not distinguished; the study of self-reference led to important developments in logic and mathematics in the twentieth century. In other words, it is not a paradox once one realizes "All Cretans are liars" being untrue only means "Not all Cretans are liars" instead of the assumption that "All Cretans are honest". Better put, for "All Cretans are liars" to be a true statement, it does not mean that all Cretans must lie all the time. In fact, Cretans could tell the truth quite but still all be liars in the sense that liars are people prone to deception for dishonest gain. Considering that “All Cretans are liars” has been seen as a paradox only since the 19th century, this seems to resolve the alleged paradox.

Of course, if ‘all Cretans are continuous liars’ is true asking a Cretan if they are honest would always elicit the dishonest answer ‘yes’. So arguably the original proposition is not so much paradoxical as invalid. A contextual reading of the contradiction may provide an answer to the paradox; the original phrase, "The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!" Asserts not an intrinsic paradox, but rather an opinion of the Cretans from Epimenides. A stereotyping of his people not intended to be an absolute statement about the people as a whole. Rather it is a claim made about their position regarding their religious beliefs and socio-cultural attitudes. Within the context of his poem the phrase is specific to a certain belief, a context that Callimachus repeats in his poem regarding Zeus. Further, a more poignant answer to the paradox is that to be a liar is to state falsehoods, nothing in the statement asserts everything said is false, but rather they're "always" lying; this is not an absolute statement of fact and thus we cannot conclude there's a true contradiction made by Epimenides with this statement.

Epimenides was a 6th-century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem: They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high oneThe Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,For in thee we live and move and have our being. Denying the immortality of Zeus was the lie of the Cretans; the phrase "Cretans, always liars" was quoted by the poet Callimachus in his Hymn to Zeus, with the same theological intent as Epimenides: O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida. -- “Cretans are liars.” Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded. The logical inconsistency of a Cretan asserting all Cretans are always liars may not have occurred to Epimenides, nor to Callimachus, who both used the phrase to emphasize their point, without irony meaning that all Cretans lie but no